Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet phenomenon

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep; WP:POINT / WP:SNOW — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Phenomenon[edit]

Delete on principle. If wiki admins are going to go after individual, valid memes, then there's no sense in even recognizing them in Wiki. Either we recognize memes with a set criteria that they must meet for inclusion, or we eliminate their recognition in wiki altogether.RudyLucius 18:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep. not totally sure what you're getting at, but i think that a page like this is fully necessary.Joeyramoney 18:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I am getting at is that wiki admins are playing god in deciding which memes they want to stay on wiki and which ones they dont, almost arbitrarily. Pokemon Kid had over 13,000 google hits and was featured on IFILM, eBaums world, and several other notable websites, but was deleted in spite of a majority vote to keep because wiki admins wanted it gone. And just look at the fight over Brian Peppers. This is a matter of principle.RudyLucius 18:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the way to dispute a previous AfD. Go to deletion review is you have a problem with the deletion of Pokemon Kid. Furthermore, note that AfD is no longer "Votes for deletion" and is now a discussion on whether an article should be kept. Pepsidrinka 19:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as AfD to illustrate a point. Please read don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Weregerbil 18:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per above Heycos 18:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Delete on principle" is not a valid argument. This is a bad faith nomination, although the page could use some cleaning up. I don't know if it's necessary to include every meme that has ever existed. Isopropyl 18:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:POINT nomination and valid article. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Adrian. Pepsidrinka 19:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending some radical pruning. --MacRusgail 19:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. A pretty clear case of WP:POINT. (Background info. for the unaware: Talk:Brian Peppers). Hynca-Hooley 19:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy keep. When the nominator openly admits his nomination is a WP:POINT violation, there's no reason to even consider it. --Aaron 19:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indeed, there should probably be criteria, but just deleting this does not solve anything. There needs to be some limit set up along the lines of "number of Google hits" or (in the case of a movie, etc.) "number of views". --CharonM72 20:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. If this page is a source of problems, make a requirement list, deletion isn't the answer - this article is vast and covers quite a large part of internet history. --x1987x 22:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.